The article "The Most Expensive GIF Of All Time" by Megan Garber is an interesting piece on how people value art. The mockery of Jeff Koons in the form of a lookalike digital GIF of "his work" deflating is a great example of the difference in price of physical art and digital.
More so no-a-days it seems that digital art has a much more appreciated approach than it did back in 2014 and I think now it is an invaluable practice in everyday business and custom individualized. I've seen digital paintings go for much more than one might first expect and I have even bought some at a respectable price. However, it occurs to me that physical art still has higher value and in my opinion that's only because it's tangible. One might argue that the new NFT craze now has even that beat being that some NFT's can be much more valuable than most physical art. But, in my opinion, NFT's aren't actually art at all. Most just seem to be a cryptocurrency with a child's skill level of visual representation and in many ways, I see this as a mockery and insult to actual skilled artists that don't even get to sell their art for as much as some NFT's go for.
Then there is this digital art piece I got as a gift that I know wasn't anywhere near the terrible scummy prices of the atrocities above. In my opinion, it's much higher quality too.
Link to the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/here-is-the-most-expensive-gif-of-all-time/379556/
Comments